WHOM TO WORSHIP SHIVA or KRISHNA ?

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

My dear one, going by your definition, I am also a "foreigner" as I was born in Australia and not in India and therefore do not understand the "Hindu ways".

Do you know something? I love it when Native Hindus raise this issue with me because they CLEARLY set aside ALL notions of reincarnation and previous births and lifetimes to do so..they CLEARLY forget that the Atman has no caste, creed or nationality. They just make a case for the whole thing by saying: "you were not born in India so you can never understand Hinduism".

I was raised in Bali Indonesia and of COURSE I know all about the traditions surrounding the AGAMAS - you won't find any murthys of Deities in Bali either..Just Shiva Lingams...no statues of Shiva whatsoever... but what they DO have, is Dwarpalas...statues of temple guardians which represents the fierce form of Lord Shiva, Kala Bhairava.

This is interesting. Thanks for the information.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Being raised in Bali as a BALINESE Hindu... without having any statues to pray to, not getting any joy out of worshiping the Shiva Lingam, I endeared myself to the Dwarpalas..I prayed to them and associated THEM with Lord Shiva..

....and that is how I became associated with the Yaksha Roopam of Lord Shiva and with the worship of Bhairava..who, as you may recall, emerged from that pillar of light to decapitate Lord Brahma.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Thanks again for the information.


Bhairava decapitating Brahma is just a metaphor.

Also Veerabhadran, Bhairava are considered as sort of lieutenants of Shiva.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by ajay00

This is interesting. Thanks for the information.





Thanks again for the information.


Bhairava decapitating Brahma is just a metaphor.

Also Veerabhadran, Bhairava are considered as sort of lieutenants of Shiva.

Or just energetic emanations of Lord Shiva as EVERYTHING is!

Even though I worship Lord Shiva in human form, I appear to be on a much deeper level of understanding and awareness here.

As such, If I were going for an "Indian Guru", I would much prefer Sadguru over Sri Sri...However, NEITHER of them "does it" for me so I won't follow either..but each has millions of followers in India and worldwide and each are constantly at each other's throats about whether Lord Shiva has an actual form or not...So of THEY can't sort it out, we have got no chance!

Suffice to say, I get this distinct feeling that you honestly don't understand who/what you're dealing with here...you only think you do... and you'd be wrong.

Well, if the Deity I worship is NOT Shiva...I would be just as happy to call it Rudra from the Rig Veda if it pleases thee...

How then does Nataraja fit into the whole thing then? Hard to do a Tandava Dance while one is busy being a phallic symbol...

I have had enough though...It is clear we are playing two different games here.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Or just emanations of Lord Shiva as EVERYTHING is!

Even though I worship Lord Shiva in human form, I appear to be on a much deeper level of understanding and awareness here.

As such, If I were going for an "Indian Guru", I would much prefer Sadguru over Sri Sri...However, NEITHER of them "does it" for me so I won't follow either..but each has millions of followers in India and worldwide and each are constantly at each others throats about whether Lord Shiva has an actual form or not...So of THEY can't sort it out, we have got no chance!

Suffice to say, I get this distinct feeling here that you honestly don't understand what you're dealing with here...You only think you do... and you'd be wrong.

Well, if the Deity I worship is NOT Shiva...I would be just as happy to call it Rudra if it pleases thee...

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris considers the deity to be Shankar, associated with death and destruction, distinct from Shiva the incorporeal point of light.

Shankar, like Rama, Krishna and Vishnu is considered to have worshipped the Shivalinga.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

How then does Nataraja fit into the whole thing then? Hard to do a Tandava Dance while one is busy being a phallic symbol...

I have had enough though...It is clear we are playing two different games here.

You can see Swami Vivekananda in this article too stating the Shivalingam to be a cosmic pillar of light on the basis of the Vedas and rejecting other interpretations.

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.in...s_congress.htm

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by ajay00

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris considers the deity to be Shankar, associated with death and destruction, distinct from Shiva the incorporeal point of light.

Shankar, like Rama, Krishna and Vishnu is considered to have worshipped the Shivalinga.



You can see Swami Vivekananda in this article too stating the Shivalingam to be a cosmic pillar of light on the basis of the Vedas and rejecting other interpretations.

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.in...s_congress.htm

Like I said before, this has got more to do with who owns the rights to the name of "Shiva" isn't it?

Hypothetical - if the Brahmakumaris called their "point of light" as "Jyoti" or "Satya" or something else, would it make any difference?

The name "Shankar" generally refers to the "householder form" of Lord Shiva and not the Ascetic form..

However, I could simply refer to the one you know as "Shankara" AS Shiva, or if the Brahmakumaris want the name to represent a point of light and are offended by the sacrilege of others who attach form, that's cool...I will just go ahead and chant the OTHER 1008 names He has!

Aum Namah Shivaya

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Like I said before, this has got more to do with who owns the rights to the name of "Shiva" isn't it?

Hypothetical - if the Brahmakumaris called their "point of light" as "Jyoti" or "Satya" or something else, would it make any difference?

The name "Shankar" generally refers to the "householder form" of Lord Shiva and not the Ascetic form..

However, I could simply refer to the one you know as "Shankara" AS Shiva, or if the Brahmakumaris want the name to represent a point of light and are offended by the sacrilege of others who attach form, that's cool...I will just go ahead and chant the OTHER 1008 names He has!

Aum Namah Shivaya

Yeah, you can do that.

The point I am making is that there is a distinction between Shankar, the trident wearing deity of destruction and Shiva, the cosmic pillar of light.

As per the Vedas and Shaivite scriptures Shiva represents a cosmic pillar of light and not some body part. The latter has been used by anti-hindus and atheists as propaganda to deride Hinduism and paint it as obscene.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Yeah, you can do that.

The point I am making is that there is a distinction between Shankar, the trident wearing deity of destruction and Shiva, the cosmic pillar of light.

As per the Vedas and Shaivite scriptures Shiva represents a cosmic pillar of light and not some body part. The latter has been used by anti-hindus and atheists as propaganda to deride Hinduism and paint it as obscene.

Namaste.

I honestly don't know WHAT the Shiva lingam is or what it is meant to represent!

I only said what I did to be derisive for the sake of argument only...Nice to see you took the bait. =)

Agama Hindu Dharma is quite a weird religion.

Although their temples are empty spaces with no statues inside them, there are a LOT of allusions to form to represent the formless.

I love the pronunciation, so going with that..

The colour red belongs to Brahma, the colour Blue or Black to Wisnu and the colour white to Ciwa...who is also known as Maharaja Dewata.

Dewi gets the colour yellow..and you can usually tell which temple belongs to whom, by the colour of the flags, umbrellas and flowers out front.

There is also an association with each God and the cardinal directions as well as the elemental tattwas representing each sense organ in the body.

Mainly though, the TRIMURTI is worshiped in Bali as one entity, with temple complexes existing of three shrines to represent the ONE God..even though each is also worshiped in its own right...I could never get this intellectually.

So, there are three Gods...Brahma, Wisnu and Ciwa..but above those three...to whom all three bowed down was one God.. Acintya Ida Sanghyang Widhi Wasa which basically translates as the non-dual primal cause of everything in existence....which the Advaitins would call BRAHMAN.

So, although Ciwa/Shiva may be worshipped as a point of light, or a Lingam, or a Dwarpala or a dancing being in a fiery circle, or an ash covered ascetic who taught esoterica and the mysticism of Kundalini Yoga to the Sapta Rishis and the first generation of Manu...One thing remains..

Until Brahman is experientially realised, all of those are just moot points.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[peteyzen]

This is a very interesting debate and too highly pitched for me. The way I understand it - simply, everything is god, there is no separation. Looked at in this way, there is no difference between Shiva and Vishnu, they are the same thing. Some on here have said I use Shiva for this and Krishna for that, or I worship Shiva but had to switch to Krishna because he doesn`t meditate, or when I worshipped him I stopped meditating because that`s not his way. This is putting limits on God, and its not true, Krishna taught meditation you can have a profound relationship with him through meditation. These are human concepts not divine ones, EVERYTHING is one, worship the aspect of the divine that makes your heart sing the most, because they are all the same thing.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by peteyzen

This is a very interesting debate and too highly pitched for me. The way I understand it - simply, everything is god, there is no separation. Looked at in this way, there is no difference between Shiva and Vishnu, they are the same thing. Some on here have said I use Shiva for this and Krishna for that, or I worship Shiva but had to switch to Krishna because he doesn`t meditate, or when I worshipped him I stopped meditating because that`s not his way. This is putting limits on God, and its not true, Krishna taught meditation you can have a profound relationship with him through meditation. These are human concepts not divine ones, EVERYTHING is one, worship the aspect of the divine that makes your heart sing the most, because they are all the same thing.

That's coming from a Monotheistic perspective, but Hinduism really isn't a monotheistic religion in the classical sense. Brahman is the highest "thing" in Hinduism, but Brahman isn't a person. So, the question is, what gave rise to duality, where the One separated into opposite counterparts. It seems to me, though I may be wrong of course, is that the world came into being when a part of Brahman separated into Shiva and Shakti, the two primal forces of the universe.

Vishnu certainly plays a part in maintaining creation for as long as it is necessary, but his role is limited in a way, because eventually Creation will collapse into itself and become unmanifest singularity and potentiality, that is Brahman, again.

So, what is Shiva's role in all this? Well, I think it is separation and manifestation first of all. That is his creative essence, symbolised by the Shivalingam. Then, when this creation has run its course, he will have to destroy it and return all of it to source. That is when Shiva and Shakti ultimately reunite, then separation ceases and we will all be One with Brahman again.

[Master M]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

THERE is a lot of animosity and debate among Hindus on the subject, largely due to ignorance. There is a similar thread running below in the name of Vaishnaism Vs Shaivism that I do not like as it divides. Though Shivani has argued well on socio economic differences I would like to highlight on some other aspects by connecting it with spiritual progress and by sharing my personal experiences.

In my childhood I was an ardent devotee of Shiva. I ate non veg, smoked sometimes marijuana, bluffed parents, did meditation, and studied well. Soon as I completed my degrees, Shiva stopped answering to my prayers and Krishna started fascinating me. I was parked alongside a new and incredible store house of knowledge known as Indian Scriptures. I gave up meditation, began to follow the strict rules of Krishna worship, and enjoyed devotional ecstasy day and night. There was nothing like it, wholesome vegetarian meals, Knowledge, security, enjoyment and victory over opponents all time any where.

So I repeat Shivani's words Vaishnism is "external path to God", while Shaivism is more an "internal path to God".

At present I worship Krishna whole time by distributing Knowledge and pray to Shiva to provide rest and controlled sex (in next birth ) that Krishna does not give.

I hope more Hindu devotees Shiva and Krishna/ Rama would come forward and share their experiences without undermining each other.

My answer is biased! Krishna all the way. I consider myself an omnist, not even a Vaishnava, and have had a sweet experience with Shiva, albeit intense. My best friend, who introduced me to Krishna, was more into Shiva and Kali as he worshiped them in past lives. Me on the other hand, Krishna charmed me from the beginning and I fell in love with Him. Krishna is also the one who purified my heart and made it so that for the first time in my life, I was not a slave to lust. I even considered being celibate for life because of Him, since He fulfilled me in so many ways.

As someone who believes in the validity of all of the Gods and Goddesses from every culture, my bias does not extend to say that Krishna is better. They are both perfect and full manifestations of Brahman. At their core they are the essence of love, and love is the quickest path. I consider love to transcend all dualities, even within and without, for it transforms the whole.

Krishna to me, being a deity who embodies the path of Bhakti, or devotional love, is much simpler, as I believe the quote "love is the quickest and surest path." That said, as far as Guru's go, I coincidentally lean to the late Shaivite, Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami. I'll take him over Prabhupada any day, even though I love and admire Prabhupada for spreading and advocating love for Krishna and all things related to Him.

The Buddha would be even more unbiased than me and tell you to do what satisfies your own soul. I just can't imagine Krishna not satisfying anybody. I've had so many fulfilling experiences with Him. Jai Krishna!

[whitelotus]

Start with one you will reach the other.